Like many animal advocates, I have thoughts about how the
movement should proceed. Of course, we all
would like to see greater cooperation and less destructive rivalry, but I
have no control over the movement’s contentiousness. So,
for what they’re worth, here are my thoughts on movement priorities.

With limited time, effort, and financial resources, we
have no choice but to choose among the animal protection projects to which
we dedicate our efforts. If our goal is to help as many animals as much as
possible (as I think it should be), I suggest that farmed animals should
be our main focus of activism for several reasons.

Numbers.

Far more animals are tortured and murdered for food than
for all other reasons combined.

Direct Effect:

People can much more directly impact animal welfare by
changing their diets than by most kinds of advocacy. For
example, a person may strongly oppose vivisection and write their
congressional representatives, yet have little or no impact on animals in
labs. On the other hand, farmers produce
animal flesh and other products in direct proportion to consumer demand.

Potential Allies:

Because animal agriculture contributes to world hunger,
environmental degradation, and harms our bodies, we may find allies outside
the animal protection movement. The degree
to which animal protection concerns dovetail with concerns of activists from
other movements tends to be much greater in animal agriculture than other
animal advocacy issues.

Necessity:

Animal foods are not necessary, making animal agriculture
a relatively vulnerable target. Admittedly,
many people think they need to eat certain foods, like milk or some meat,
for good nutrition, but people generally agree that the quantity most
Americans consume is unnecessary for well-being. In contrast, for example,
many people see vivisection as necessary for medical progress (however much
we may disagree with assertion).

Vulnerability:

The food industry is very sensitive to consumer demands,
in part because consumers have many choices. For example, if people believe
McDonald’s causes animals to suffer, they can easily choose other eating
establishments. If people believe that veal production is cruel, they can
choose other foods. There is potential for reform of conditions of animals
on farms which, if done properly, could benefit animals. In contrast, the
vivisection industry is not very concerned about public opinion.
Circuses,
zoos, and rodeos are not as vulnerable to public opinion, because, for those
who enjoy these activities, there are no readily available substitutes.

Animal Liberation:

As long as people eat animals, they will often be reluctant
to endorse other aspects of animal liberation, for fear of being called
hypocrites.

Tools.

Videos such as Meet Your Meat can be displayed
inexpensively in public, giving us powerful tools for advocating for animals
on farms. Several groups have produced powerful expose literature.
(I think
the best are Why Vegan? and Vegetarian Living by Vegan Outreach.)

A Difficulty

One problem with the farmed animal issue is that it does
not generate public sympathy as readily as other issues. People more readily
open their wallets for members of species they like (e.g., dogs and cats),
readily visible victims (e.g., sick or injured animals at their doorsteps as
opposed to anonymous animals far away), and in response to moral outrage
(thus the disgust at vivisectors, who are so arrogant and self-righteous as
they intentionally inflict pain and misery on victims). One can support the
local animal shelter without embracing animal liberation, and this avoids
making uncomfortable dietary and other lifestyle changes.